AVIATR - Titan Airplane Mission Concept, Proposed unmanned aerial exploration of Titan |
AVIATR - Titan Airplane Mission Concept, Proposed unmanned aerial exploration of Titan |
Apr 16 2010, 12:20 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2785 Joined: 10-November 06 From: Pasadena, CA Member No.: 1345 |
The AVIATR mission concept is an unmanned aerial vehicle that would fly over Titan’s surface. It’s nominal one year mission would enable detailed high-resolution images of Titan’s diverse landscapes for better comparison to Earth’s geological processes. Selected regions could be imaged at resolutions near 30 cm/pixel, equivalent to current HiRise imaging of Mars. In addition, atmospheric sampling would allow a profile of Titan’s thick lower atmosphere and how it relates to Earth’s atmospheric processes and weather systems.
Further details of the AVIATR mission concept were presented at the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference 2010 and at Titan Through Time 2010. See: Barnes et al. LPSC 41 (2010) Abstract 2551. “AVIATR: Aerial Vehicle for In-situ and Airborne Titan Reconnaissance.” Freely available here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/2551.pdf And also: http://www.info.uidaho.edu/documents/2010%...18467&doc=1 -------------------- Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
|
|
|
Jun 23 2010, 01:30 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 656 Joined: 20-April 05 From: League City, Texas Member No.: 285 |
I'm really bothered by the very low (2 Gb) projected data return. This just doesn't sound like a lot of return for a billion dollar investment. Even with compression, 2 Gb doesn't add up to a lot of images (try going on vacation with only a 2 Gb flash card for your digicam), and this mission has the potential to explore much of Titan. Also, the 30 cm/pixel maximum resolution of the surface is on par with what I would expect from an orbiter, not an aircraft. I'd be reasonably happy with 3 mm per pixel (presumably associated with occasional low passes over targets of interest), and I'd like to see data return increased by at least a factor of 10, preferably 100. Possibly the greater data return might be achieved by storing much of the data until near end of mission, then achieving an intact landing and then leisurely transmitting the remainder over a period of months or years; I could even envision adding a very lightweight parabolic antenna to be deployed post-landing to accelerate data return.
|
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 04:07 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 131 Joined: 30-August 06 From: Moscow, Idaho Member No.: 1086 |
I'm really bothered by the very low (2 Gb) projected data return. This just doesn't sound like a lot of return for a billion dollar investment. That should be 2 gigabytes (GB) and not 2 gigabits as written. While AVIATR certainly is not going to be like MRO blasting back terabytes and terabytes of data, let me take this opportunity to suggest that data is not knowledge. Put another way, more bits does not always mean more science. At Mars there's been 40 years of exploration. In order to make new scientific discoveries from a orbiter taking pictures, you need to do more and better than the missions that have gone before you. Because HiRISE is following on a very capable, very successful imager on MGS, it needed to do better in order be able to do things that MOC was unable to do. In the planetary exploration business, the general rule of thumb is that you need to do about 10 times better than the previous mission in order to be compelling enough to fly. HiRISE's pixel scale is 3 times better than MOC, its swath width at least 5 times wider, and it can send back more images due to the greater bandwidth available on MRO. Hence it was deemed a compelling investigation. Cassini's RADAR has a best pixel scale of about 300 meters per pixel. Since pixel scale is not resolution, the actual resolution of the RADAR images is more like 750 - 1000 meters due to inherent speckle noise in the RADAR data. The best VIMS data are 250 meters per pixel, but those noodles are only 13 pixels across. AVIATR would do 1000 times better than these in terms of spatial resolution. A better comparison for AVIATR would be Huygens. Huygens returned mosaics from around its landing site of varying resolution. Obviously the picture from the surface had spatial resolution that we can't match from an airplane! But our image mosaics from sites of interest will resemble Huygens', but with better control, higher spatial resolution where desired, and better signal-to-noise since we're imaging in the infrared. If you think that 2GB is too little for a mission, then would you fly a mission that would return a total of just 60 MB of data? That's all that we got from Huygens. AVIATR would return 30 times the total data that we got from from Huygens. The reason that 2GB is enough isn't because of the quantity of data -- its that we'll be returning images that can't be obtained any other way. AVIATR will have a huge science and exploration impact because we're looking where nobody's looked before. It's not the number of bits that you have. Its how you use them - Jason W. Barnes |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 06:44 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |